Discussion Title: Should a global curfew be introduced to stop COVID-19?

1. A global curfew should be introduced to stop COVID-19.
1.1. Pro: Without a curfew, the virus is able to spread unchecked, increasing the possibility of it mutating into dangerous strains.
1.1.1. Con: Mutations of the COVID-19 virus are unlikely to be dangerous.
1.1.1.1. Con: Mutations are [random](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/mutations_07) and hard to predict. A mutation could just as well make COVID-19 more potent.
1.1.1.2. Pro: Viruses "[usually produce changes that are neutral](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/07/health/coronavirus-mutations-analysis/index.html)". Neutral mutations, which neither improve nor hinder viruses' survival, may continue to circulate without any noticeable change in the people they infect.
1.1.1.2.1. Pro: Mutation is a [mundane aspect](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0690-4?draft=marketing) of existence for many viruses, and COVID-19 is no exception.
1.1.1.2.2. Con: While it's true that most mutations we'll see in any given virus are neutral, the more people have it, the more viral particles produced, the more total mutations. That increases the chances of dangerous mutations.
1.1.1.3. Pro: In March 2020, researchers held that the [COVID-19 virus is relatively stable](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/25/820998549/the-coronavirus-is-mutating-but-that-may-not-be-a-problem-for-humans?t=1585490212583) and did not acquire many mutations.
1.1.1.3.1. Con: March 2020 was early in the pandemic and so assumptions made then were not necessarily the most accurate.
1.1.1.4. Pro: The dangerousness of COVID-19 is a sum of many factors, which are, in turn, controlled by many features of the virus. Mutations that make an individual feature of the virus "worse" may not necessarily make it more dangerous.
1.1.1.4.1. Pro: A mutation that caused people who got the virus to become sicker might actually reduce its spread, as people would notice their symptoms and self-isolate earlier.
1.1.1.4.1.1. Con: A virus that causes people to become sicker will lead to more deaths, which is overall worse for everyone involved.
1.1.1.4.1.2. Con: A mutation that does not increase morbidity, but only [increases the rate of spread](https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-variants-are-they-really-more-deadly-heres-what-scientists-know-so-far-153921) will still be deadly in a cumulative sense.
1.1.1.4.2. Con: Even if only some [features of the virus made worse by mutations](https://sciencespeaksblog.org/2021/02/02/covid-mega-variant-and-eight-criteria-for-a-template-to-assess-all-variants/) are dangerous, it does not mean that we should not avoid mutations.
1.1.1.5. Con: Some mutations of the COVID-19 virus are dangerous because they are likely to be [resilient against certain vaccines](https://theconversation.com/concerning-coronavirus-mutation-now-found-in-uk-variant-heres-what-you-need-to-know-153248).
1.1.1.5.1. Con: Even if vaccines, as they currently stand, would be ineffective against certain mutations, making minor changes in the vaccines could allow them to tackle [mutations](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55917793).
1.1.1.5.1.1. Pro: Experts estimate that it would only take a [few months](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55404988) to modify the vaccine so that it is effective against the new strains.
1.1.1.5.1.2. Pro: Some institutions are trying to develop [a vaccine that provides T-cell immunity](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00367-7#ref-CR2). This could be a potential solution to the reduced effectiveness of some vaccines against mutations.
1.1.1.5.2. Pro: In February 2021, [South Africa](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55975052) halted deployment of Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine following a study showing disappointing results against a local variant of the COVID-19 virus.
1.1.1.5.3. Con: In February 2020, [Pfizer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_SARS-CoV-2#cite_note-99) announced that even though its vaccine produced around 66% fewer antibodies towards a mutation of the virus than towards the regular variant, it was still successful in curbing spread.
1.1.1.6. Con: Mutations of COVID-19 have created [versions of the virus](https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-new-covid-19-variants-could-be-more-infectious-11610802327) which are more infectious and therefore more dangerous.
1.1.2. Con: The virus [mutates](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/05/08/852081139/the-coronavirus-is-mutating-thats-normal-does-that-mean-it-s-more-dangerous) twice a month even without a curfew.
1.1.2.1. Con: The proofreading machinery on COVID-19 [greatly reduces](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/the-coronavirus-isnt-mutating-quickly-suggesting-a-vaccine-would-offer-lasting-protection/2020/03/24/406522d6-6dfd-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html) the “error rate” and thus, the chances of mutations accumulating too quickly as well.
1.1.2.1.1. Pro: For the most part, the virus looked remarkably similar everywhere it spread, with as few as [four to ten](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/the-coronavirus-isnt-mutating-quickly-suggesting-a-vaccine-would-offer-lasting-protection/2020/03/24/406522d6-6dfd-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html) genetic differences.
1.1.2.2. Con: The mutations of the virus are [currently being tracked](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55404988) by regularly sequencing the genome of the virus in infected people. Without a curfew, the virus will [spread more quickly](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/yes-curfews-can-help-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-heres-how) and infect more people, and more sequencing will need to take place. This will strain the resources needed for this initiative to continue.
1.1.3. Pro: Insofar as curfews stem the spread of COVID-19, less virus replication leads to [fewer opportunities](http://Less virus replication leads to fewer opportunities for the virus to evolve in humans) for the virus to evolve in humans.
1.1.3.1. Pro: The virus has mutated into [several different strains](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200803105246.htm) that are more dangerous than the original virus. If the virus is allowed to continue spreading as it is currently, more of such strains will emerge.
1.1.3.1.1. Pro: The UK and South African variants [spread more easily](https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-dangerous-are-new-covid-19-strains) than the original virus.
1.1.3.1.2. Pro: A new variant of the virus, which may be resistant to vaccination, has been discovered in [New York City.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/covid-strain-new-york-city-b1807094.html)
1.1.3.1.3. Pro: If one person catches multiple strains of the virus, this could lead to the viruses [swapping](https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-02-23/california-homegrown-coronavirus-strain-looks-increasingly-transmissible-and-dangerous) their mutations and becoming even more dangerous.
1.1.3.2. Con: Lockdowns cannot successfully eliminate [lethal strains of the COVID-19 virus](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/12/22/lockdowns-may-actually-prevent-natural-weakening-disease/).
1.1.3.2.1. Pro: In some contexts, [lockdowns](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2020/12/22/lockdowns-may-actually-prevent-natural-weakening-disease/) may prevent a weakening of COVID-19 by keeping more lethal strains dominant than the milder ones.
1.1.4. Pro: Reducing the likelihood of further mutations of the COVID-19 virus requires a [globally coordinated approach](https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/28/we-need-an-equitable-and-coordinated-global-approach-to-covid-19-vaccination/).
1.1.5. Con: There is evidence that prioritizing [immunocompromised](https://www.wired.com/story/heres-a-plan-to-stop-the-coronavirus-from-mutating/) people for vaccination can reduce the likelihood of mutations.
1.1.5.1. Con: The rollout of vaccines is [too slow](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-the-covid-19-vaccine-rollout-is-so-slow) to be effective in the short-term, and so a global curfew is a necessary temporary step.
1.1.5.1.1. Pro: Some [immunocompromised](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-some-immunocompromised-people-may-not-be-eligible-for-a-covid-19-vaccine) people may not be eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.
1.1.5.2. Pro: Early research suggests that mutations are more likely to occur in those who have [weakened immune systems.](https://creakyjoints.org/living-with-arthritis/coronavirus/new-coronavirus-variants-immunocompromised-patients/)
1.1.5.3. Con: -> See 1.1.1.5.
1.2. Con: A global curfew will have devastating political consequences.
1.2.1. Con: Existing political coalitions in the US will be changed for the better.
1.2.1.1. Pro: Curfews have inhibited people's ability to earn to the extent they previously could. As a result, the US has had to slacken its standard neoliberal policies.
1.2.1.1.1. Pro: The Republican Party's staunch support of austerity measures has already been [weakened](https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/how-coronavirus-could-change-politics/); prominent Republican Party members have advocated for writing checks to individuals and businesses in order to help them get through the crisis.
1.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: The US government has announced an economic stimulus package of [$2.2 trillion](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/senate-passes-coronavirus-stimulus-package).
1.2.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: The [bill](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/senate-passes-coronavirus-stimulus-package) would provide up to $1,200 in direct relief for American adults, create a $500 billion lending program for businesses, cities and states and $367 billion fund for small businesses. The plan also provides $130 billion to hospitals, and expands unemployment insurance.
1.2.1.1.1.2. Pro: In January 2021, President Biden proposed a [$1.9 trillion economic rescue package](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/14/politics/biden-economic-rescue-package-coronavirus-stimulus/index.html).
1.2.1.1.2. Pro: The US's [neoliberal healthcare system](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/21/medicare-for-all-coronavirus-covid-19-single-payer) has put American lives at risk. As a consequence, support for universal healthcare has been on the rise since the pandemic has hit.
1.2.1.1.2.1. Pro: In September 2020, [a survey](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-share-of-americans-favor-a-single-government-program-to-provide-health-care-coverage/) reported that 63% of US adults believe the government has the responsibility to provide healthcare coverage for all.
1.2.1.1.2.2. Pro: As a result of the pandemic, [41%](https://morningconsult.com/2020/03/13/coronavirus-universal-health-care/) of the public in the US is more likely to support universal healthcare.
1.2.1.1.3. Pro: Employers are mandating workers to work from home.
1.2.1.1.3.1. Pro: The U.S. Justice Department has ordered “[maximum telework](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/justice-department-shifts-stance-on-working-from-home-during-coronavirus-outbreak-after-employee-groups-complaint-2020-03-16)" for employees.
1.2.1.1.3.2. Con: [Charter Communications](https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/16/charter-coronavirus-work-home/), one of the largest phone and internet providers in USA, has prohibited working from home even as the virus spreads.
1.2.1.1.3.2.1. Con: In March 2020, Chartered Communications [updated this policy](https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/19/21186676/charter-communications-remote-coronavirus-att-comcast-verizon) to allow its employees to work from home.
1.2.1.1.4. Con: Support for [authoritarianism](https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/despite-increased-solidarity-in-the-pandemic-authoritarianism-threatens/) has been on the rise during the pandemic. Authoritarianism [can be linked to](https://www.ppesydney.net/the-rise-of-nationalist-authoritarianism-and-the-crisis-of-neoliberalism/) the rise of neoliberal policies.
1.2.1.1.4.1. Pro: The neoliberal view of politics is [drawn toward authoritarian politics](https://research.cbs.dk/en/publications/neoliberalism-and-authoritarianism) and the respective actors because neoliberal thinkers largely lack any alternative option to account for the possibility of neoliberal reform.
1.2.1.2. Con: A curfew could worsen political divisions among people in the US.
1.2.1.2.1. Pro: Already, more Republicans than Democrats believe in [COVID-19](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/24/a-look-at-the-americans-who-believe-there-is-some-truth-to-the-conspiracy-theory-that-covid-19-was-planned/) conspiracy theories. A wider curfew could bring this belief to the fore for many.
1.2.1.2.2. Con: Donald Trump and the Democrats were [united](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/29/mcconnell-blocks-immediate-action-senate-stimulus-checks/4073258001/) in calling for an increase in the value of one-time stimulus cheques.
1.2.1.2.2.1. Con: This coalescing of interests was short-lived, as shortly after these calls there was an insurrection and an [impeachment](https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-found-not-guilty-at-impeachment-trial-12217300) hearing.
1.2.2. Pro: Curfews could lead to an abuse of power by governments, leading to the infringement of people's constitutional rights.
1.2.2.1. Pro: [The](https://www.rappler.com/nation/255530-24-hour-curfews-unconstitutional-excessive) curfews being instituted are arbitrary, excessive, and disproportionate, making them unconstitutional.
1.2.2.1.1. Pro: The implementation of a global curfew would affect everyone across the world indiscriminately, irrespective of how badly COVID-19 is actually affecting them.
1.2.2.1.2. Pro: Lockdown measures in the UK are thought to be [without legal basis.](https://www.33bedfordrow.co.uk/insights/articles/was-lockdown-lawful-thoughts-of-a-former-supreme-court-judge)
1.2.2.1.3. Con: In the US, a national quarantine or curfew would be [constitutional](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/05/15/national-quarantine-constitutional-261165).
1.2.2.2. Pro: It would be politically devastating as leaders would be tempted to use the arguably very weak precedent of the COVID-19 pandemic to implement curfews on even more questionable circumstances in the future.
1.2.2.3. Pro: Lockdowns in many countries have seen the use of [authoritative](https://www.france24.com/en/20201015-france-imposes-curfew-on-paris-and-other-cities-as-europe-ramps-up-covid-19-restrictions) measures.
1.2.2.3.1. Pro: Many countries have seen violent crackdowns on those breaking curfews.
1.2.2.3.1.1. Pro: In [India](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8150253/Police-India-beat-people-submission-coronavirus-lockdown-bites.html), the police are physically assaulting people who violate the curfew. This constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
1.2.2.3.1.2. Pro: The policing of [Kenya](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/oct/23/brutal-policing-kenyas-covid-curfew-left-15-dead)'s curfew has left 15 dead; many more people were beaten and assaulted.
1.2.2.3.2. Pro: The Hungarian government has used the pandemic [as an excuse](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/31/coronavirus-is-a-chance-for-authoritarian-leaders-to-tighten-their-grip) to tighten control over its people.
1.2.2.3.3. Pro: Countries such as China, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia have [notably turned to](https://www.kcl.ac.uk/do-authoritarian-measures-to-tackle-the-coronavirus-entail-a-faustian-pact??/??) authoritarian measures to curtail civil society and political dissent.
1.2.2.4. Con: It is possible to carry out [lockdowns](https://voxeu.org/article/rallying-effect-lockdowns) without abusing power and through democratic means.
1.2.2.5. Con: Governments of the world are under increased scrutiny, and so attempts to turn a global curfew into an abuse of power could be stopped by a vigilant public.
1.2.2.5.1. Con: Press freedom is [fragile](https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-highlights-fragility-press-freedom-face-covid-19-2020) and has been eroded in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. A widespread curfew would likely see further infringements on this.
1.2.2.5.1.1. Pro: The lack of a [free press](http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/events/prizes-and-celebrations/celebrations/international-days/world-press-freedom-day/previous-celebrations/worldpressfreedomday200900000/theme-media-and-good-governance/) means the government is less likely to be held accountable.
1.2.2.5.2. Pro: Most countries, like the UK, are seeing [parliamentary scrutiny](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmpubadm/377/37702.htm) of the government's handling of the pandemic.
1.2.2.5.3. Pro: The public can generally vote out a government which they feel is not doing right by them or is eroding their freedoms.
1.2.3. Pro: Curfews constitute an inherent erosion of people's civil liberties.
1.2.3.1. Pro: Curfews take away the right to free movement.
1.2.3.1.1. Pro: Curfews take away the [right to travel.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/the-right-to-travel)
1.2.3.1.2. Pro: [Article 12](https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to free movement within the territory of a state.
1.2.3.1.3. Con: The infringement of the right to free movement is proportional and being instituted lawfully, using [emergency powers](https://www.justsecurity.org/70029/emergency-powers-in-the-time-of-coronaand-beyond/) legislation.
1.2.3.2. Pro: Individuals have the right to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to restrict their movements, rather than have that choice taken away by a global curfew.
1.2.3.2.1. Con: It is illogical to consider the choice to go outside during a pandemic an informed one when no one can accurately consider what it would be like to have their life irreversibly altered or ended by contracting COVID-19.
1.2.3.2.2. Con: The amount of background information needed to make an informed decision in this case is too much for a layperson.
1.2.3.2.3. Con: People often make poor choices and so the reduction in people's freedom when their lives are on the line is justified.
1.2.3.2.3.1. Con: Individual liberty allows people to [maximize self-interest](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/lifting-lockdown-a-tragedy-of-the-commons/) in whatever manner they see fit.
1.2.3.2.3.1.1. Con: It is unethical to pursue one's self-interest when it comes at the cost of the suffering and loss of life of others.
1.2.3.2.4. Pro: The ability to make decisions about one's own life according to one's own values and preferences is a core part of human dignity \([p. 3](https://social.un.org/ageing-working-group/documents/ninth/Freedom%20to%20decide%202018%20English.pdf)\).
1.2.3.3. Con: It is justified to suspend people's civil liberties for the good of the general public, as is the case in a public health emergency.
1.2.3.3.1. Pro: During extenuating circumstances, people's civil liberties are curtailed.
1.2.3.3.1.1. Pro: Haebus corpus is often suspended in times of crisis, like [wartime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States#Suspension_during_the_Civil_War).
1.2.3.3.2. Con: A global curfew may not be a proportionate suspension of people's liberties if it is being implemented indiscriminately.
1.2.3.4. Con: [Many people](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3064950/china-keeps-turning-screw-civil-liberties-and-free-speech-says) in some parts of the world do not have civil liberties to erode.
1.2.3.4.1. Con: Most people would have been able to leave their houses whenever they wished before the pandemic, so a global curfew would still be an erosion of what civil liberties they did have.
1.2.4. Con: [Young people](https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/young-people-turn-online-political-engagement-during-covid-19) have been motivated to become involved in politics on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.2.4.1. Pro: Curfews move many activities online, and young people have been using [online tools](https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/young-people-turn-online-political-engagement-during-covid-19) to engage in political activism.
1.2.4.1.1. Pro: The pandemic has created a [boom of activity](https://source.colostate.edu/activism-in-the-era-of-covid-19/) on social media, with people using various platforms to search for information relating to different causes and to show their support.
1.2.4.2. Pro: A [poll](https://news.gallup.com/poll/315761/lack-voting-information-hamper-youth-turnout.aspx) found that, in the US, as a result of the pandemic, 79% of the youth realized how much political leaders' decisions impact their lives.
1.2.5. Pro: A global curfew could lead to an increase in the political power of negative actors.
1.2.5.1. Pro: The deployment of the military to help enforce curfews will likely cause a shift in the balance of power.
1.2.5.1.1. Pro: This increases military involvement in politics. This is particularly a problem for countries whose armies have a history of interfering in democratic processes.
1.2.5.1.1.1. Con: The deployment of the military [has been framed](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7537208/) in the context of the crisis brought on by the pandemic. If managed correctly, it will not have long-term impacts on the balance of power.
1.2.5.1.1.2. Pro: COVID-19 accelerated tensions in Mali, and indirectly led to a [coup-d'etat.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/08/20/mali-coup-coronavirus/)
1.2.5.1.1.3. Pro: The COVID-19 pandemic has [weakened](http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/190616/france-unveils-plan-to-invest-€295bn-in-2019_2025-to-upgrade-military-equipment.html) the civilian government in Pakistan and emboldened the military.
1.2.5.1.2. Pro: Many countries have seen the [deployment of the military](https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2020/04/europe-armed-forces-covid-19) in tandem with curfews and lockdowns.
1.2.5.1.2.1. Con: Countries that have deployed the military have done so [in recognition of](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7537208/) the pressing need for additional personnel and on-ground support that civilian organizations are unable to provide properly. This is thus a carefully considered decision.
1.2.5.1.2.2. Pro: 20,000 soldiers have been [deployed](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/italy-army-to-patrol-streets-to-avoid-curfew-breaches/1773379) in Italy to ensure that curfews are adhered to.
1.2.5.1.2.3. Pro: The military has been deployed in countries in [Latin American](https://gulfnews.com/world/americas/coronavirus-latin-america-imposes-military-roadblocks-curfews-1.1584404375720) in order to impose the curfew.
1.2.5.1.2.3.1. Pro: In Peru, the military has set up [road blocks](https://gulfnews.com/world/americas/coronavirus-latin-america-imposes-military-roadblocks-curfews-1.1584404375720).
1.2.5.1.2.4. Pro: In the US, the National Guard has been [deployed](https://www.ft.com/content/7b1bfbff-8138-3d31-800d-1c5dc729cd98) in order to assist the hardest-hit states.
1.2.5.1.2.5. Pro: In Pakistan, there has been [heavy troop deployment](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/troops-deployed-across-pakistan-to-fight-covid-19/articleshow/74785853.cms) to help contain the spread of the virus.
1.2.5.1.3. Con: The pandemic is [increasing budgetary pressures](https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/what-will-great-power-militaries-look-like-after-covid-19/) on militaries throughout the world. Decreased budgets post-pandemic will decrease the power of militaries and thus offset this shift in the balance of power.
1.2.5.1.3.1. Pro: In Europe, it is [projected](https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_beware_of_mission_accomplished_syndrome_germany_and_european_def/) that economic and social recovery from the pandemic will take precedence over military needs and thus lead to the slashing of military budgets.
1.2.5.1.3.1.1. Pro: The [budgets](https://www.csis.org/analysis/toward-new-lost-decade-covid-19-and-defense-spending-europe) of two flagship defense programs, European Defense Fund and the Military Mobility Initiative, were significantly reduced from their initial target in the multiannual financial framework for 2021–27.
1.2.5.1.3.2. Con: France has [increased its defense budget](http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/190616/france-unveils-plan-to-invest-€295bn-in-2019_2025-to-upgrade-military-equipment.html) by €1.7 billion \($2 billion\) per year until 2022 and then by €3 billion \($3.5 billion\) in 2023.
1.2.5.2. Pro: The populist right has [capitalized](https://www.politico.eu/article/populists-cite-coronavirus-outbreak-to-advance-anti-immigration-agenda/) on the pandemic by blaming the contagion on open borders and migrants. The hysteria created by a global curfew could cause a further shift to the right.
1.2.5.2.1. Con: As people are more concerned about [healthcare](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/pandemic-dealt-blow-europe-far-right.html), the far right are actually less able to capitalize on the pandemic.
1.2.5.2.2. Pro: [Economic insecurity](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/pandemic-dealt-blow-europe-far-right.html), caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, could galvanize support for the far-right in the long term.
1.2.5.2.2.1. Pro: Economic insecurity has previously been linked to [increased support](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/insecurity-political-activism/) for the far-right.
1.2.5.2.3. Pro: Far-right parties in some countries have called for tighter border controls.
1.2.5.2.3.1. Pro: In France, Marine Le Pen has used the spread of COVID-19 to [demand](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-outbreak-migrants-blamed-italy-matteo-salvini-marine-le-pen) the closure of France’s border with Italy.
1.2.5.2.3.2. Pro: Far-right parties in Germany and Spain have all [called for](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-populist-right-is-exploiting-coronavirus/2020/03/05/e9e35082-5f1e-11ea-b014-4fafa866bb81_story.html) tighter border controls.
1.2.5.2.3.3. Con: Border controls have been seen as a necessary part of pursuing a "[zero-COVID](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/05/covid-could-britain-have-been-more-like-new-zealand)" policy.
1.2.5.2.4. Pro: The populist right has pushed for tighter and tougher immigration policies amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.2.5.2.4.1. Pro: Italy's interior minister, Matteo Salvini, has been petitioning the government to [stop allowing](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/24/salvini-attacks-italy-pm-over-coronavirus-and-links-to-rescue-ship) migrants from Africa to enter the US, despite there being very few cases in the continent.
1.2.5.2.4.2. Pro: The New Democracy government in Greece is using the risk of COVID-19 as an [excuse](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-outbreak-migrants-blamed-italy-matteo-salvini-marine-le-pen) for pressing ahead with its controversial plan to build “closed” camps for asylum seekers.
1.2.5.3. Pro: Protesters have successfully forced leaders to rescind curfews and lockdowns thus far. The success of protests against curfews would encourage even greater protests and wider political consequences in the future.
1.2.5.3.1. Pro: A [demonstration](https://www.wfla.com/news/hillsborough-county/coronavirus-curfew-rescinded-in-hillsborough-county/) of political might by protesters in Florida forced leaders to rescind the curfew. An official stated “. . . my phones have been ringing off the hook and my email has been flooded by citizens all over the county, who are upset about the curfew.”.
1.2.5.3.2. Con: In general, [protests](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/six-reasons-why-protest-is-so-important/) are a symbol of an engaged public and are not something to be lamented.
1.2.5.3.2.1. Con: Protests can be [violent](https://www.businessinsider.com/stop-making-excuses-protesters-act-like-bad-cops-portland-seattle-2020-9?r=US&IR=T) and attempt to circumvent the will of the people, as expressed through their democratically-elected representatives.
1.2.5.3.2.2. Pro: Protests are an effective way to [achieve](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/06/why-protests-work/613420/) positive change, even if it often takes a longer timeframe for this to be realised.
1.2.5.3.2.3. Con: General rules cannot apply to outlier events such as this pandemic.
1.2.5.3.3. Pro: Protests in the time of COVID-19 could be [superspreader](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/01/08/capitol-coronavirus/) events.
1.2.5.4. Con: [Mutual aid](https://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/mutual-aid-networks-help-those-in-need-while-creating-bonds-that-strengthen-us-all/) programmes have grown in response to COVID-19 too, which mark the decentralization of power and an increase in community sharing.
1.2.5.4.1. Pro: Mutual aid programmes can increase [intergroup solidarity](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/covid19-mutual-aid-solidarity/).
1.2.5.4.2. Con: [Mutual aid](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/18/what-mutual-aid-can-do-during-a-pandemic) during the pandemic can impede the creation of sustainable and state-driven welfare structures.
1.2.5.5. Con: The "[rally 'round the flag effect](https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-rally-round-the-flag-effect-and-covid-19/)" can and has led to increased support for governments, and a global curfew, as an important symbol of the crisis, would likely increase this.
1.2.5.5.1. Con: This effect can be a negative in and of itself, as it can scupper valid criticism of politicians.
1.2.5.5.2. Con: In some instances, the pandemic has decreased trust in the [government's handling of the public health crisis](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/oct/significant-rise-no-confidence-governments-handling-covid-19).
1.3. Pro: Curfews are the most effective way to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
1.3.1. Con: Curfews are ineffective at containing the virus because people inevitably violate them.
1.3.1.1. Pro: In [Colombo](https://www.kusi.com/i/the-latest-over-400-accused-of-violating-sri-lanka-curfew/), police have detained 2,682 persons for violating the curfew and detained 786 vehicles since the imposition o the curfew.
1.3.1.2. Con: People are unlikely to violate the curfew since the punishment for violating it is severe.
1.3.1.2.1. Pro: Violation of [Texas county’s curfew](https://whnt.com/news/texas-countys-curfew-amid-coronavirus-spread-is-punishable-by-fines-up-to-1000-jail-time/) is punishable by fines up to $1,000 and possibly jail time.
1.3.1.2.2. Pro: In [Kuwait](https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/gulf/2020/03/22/Coronavirus-in-Kuwait-Three-years-in-jail-10-000-KD-fine-for-breaching-curfew), the punishment for violating the COVID-19 curfew is up to three years in jail and a fine of 10,000 KD.
1.3.1.2.3. Pro: Curfew violators in [Saudi Arabia](https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/saudi/coronavirus-curfew-violators-in-saudi-arabia-to-face-fines-of-up-to-sr10000-1.1584971959174) have to pay fine up to to SR10,000 and jail time.
1.3.1.2.4. Pro: In Italy, the [punishment](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/italy-punishment-time-coronavirus-200312171128553.html) for violating the COVID-19 curfew is a three-month prison sentence or a fine of 206 euros.
1.3.1.2.5. Con: Many people violate curfews in spite of the fines, as they do not have [faith](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/11/cummings-effect-why-are-people-breaking-lockdown-rules) in the government.
1.3.1.3. Pro: It is difficult to enforce a global curfew since people would not want to live under them.
1.3.1.3.1. Pro: Many people believe that lockdowns are [illegitimate](https://theconversation.com/many-anti-lockdown-protesters-believe-the-government-is-illegitimate-their-legal-arguments-dont-stand-up-146668).
1.3.1.3.1.1. Pro: Many people across the world have been protesting COVID-19 restrictions.
1.3.1.3.1.1.1. Pro: [Ireland](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56222942) has seen recent anti-lockdown protests.
1.3.1.3.1.1.2. Pro: Many European countries have seen protests in [2021](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/2/mapping-coronavirus-anti-lockdown-protests-around-the-world) alone.
1.3.1.3.2. Con: COVID-19 has led to feelings of [solidarity](https://theconversation.com/what-is-solidarity-during-coronavirus-and-always-its-more-than-were-all-in-this-together-135002) among disparate groups, due to the shared experience of COVID-19, and so many people would be willing to comply with a curfew.
1.3.1.3.3. Pro: People are increasingly finding it difficult to [comply with the rules of a lockdown](https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-one-in-four-finding-it-harder-to-follow-rules-in-second-lockdown-as-people-grow-tired-of-restrictions-12147727).
1.3.1.3.3.1. Pro: Many people in Italy have failed to adhere to the curfew. As many as [92,367](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/this-is-not-a-film-italian-mayors-rage-coronavirus-lockdown-dodgers) citizens had been charged for breaking curfew.
1.3.1.3.3.2. Pro: For [economic reasons](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/07/uk/lockdown-breakers-covid-economy-gbr-intl/index.html), people have been forced to ignore COVID-19 rules.
1.3.2. Con: With the availability of effective vaccines, curfews are no longer the most effective way to control the spread of COVID-19.
1.3.2.1. Pro: Using vaccination to reduce the spread of COVID-19 would cause less economic damage than using lockdowns.
1.3.2.2. Con: People will not be vaccinated for a long time, and so a curfew should be used to reduce the spread in the meantime.
1.3.2.2.1. Pro: Almost [one-quarter](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/almost-one-quarter-of-world-s-population-will-not-get-covid-19-vaccine-until-2022-1.4438290) of the world’s population will not get the COVID-19 vaccine until 2022.
1.3.2.2.1.1. Pro: The global supply of [vaccines](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/coronavirus-news-covid-vaccine-lockdown-end-quarantine-schools/) is strained.
1.3.2.3. Con: Vaccines alone are insufficient in stopping the spread of the virus.
1.3.2.3.1. Con: A preliminary study of the [AstraZeneca vaccine](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777268) found that it can offer up to 76% protection against the COVID-19 virus.
1.3.2.3.2. Pro: Some mutations in the virus can negatively impact the efficacy of [vaccines](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6).
1.3.2.3.2.1. Pro: The Oxford/AstraZeneca is [not as effective](https://www.ft.com/content/e9bbd4fe-e6bf-4383-bfd3-be64140a3f36) against the strain of COVID-19 in South Africa.
1.3.2.3.2.1.1. Con: The Pfizer vaccine is only [slightly less effective](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-idUSKBN29W31M) against the South African strain.
1.3.2.3.2.2. Con: According to [experts](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/the-coronavirus-is-mutating-how-fast-will-vaccines-catch-up#Heres-how-fast-it-takes), tweaking the vaccine so that it is effective against these variants is extremely easy.
1.3.2.3.3. Con: Countries that are seeing a reduction in infections following vaccination are [easing lockdown measures](https://www.ft.com/content/e550cce3-d225-3f67-82ee-f3093b818e20).
1.3.2.3.4. Pro: As of 22nd January 2021, it was too early to say if vaccines successfully reduce [transmission of the COVID-19 virus](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55757369) to the extent that it justifies easing lockdown measures.
1.3.3. Pro: Curfews can help to reduce the pressure on the healthcare system.
1.3.3.1. Pro: Healthcare workers can become stressed and overloaded on account of [COVID-19](https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/ludhiana/covid-spike-increases-stress-in-healthcare-workers-112712), and curfews can help relieve the burden and offer a chance to recover.
1.3.3.1.1. Pro: Doctors who are stressed and burnt out can be a risk to patients, as their attention and communication [deteriorates](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/physician-burnout-can-affect-your-health-2018062214093).
1.3.3.2. Con: In low-income countries, curfews could actually lead to a [disruption](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(20\)31089-8/fulltext) in healthcare access.
1.3.3.2.1. Pro: A [study](https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/8/e003042) on the impact of lockdowns in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria, and Pakistan found that the ability of slum residents' to access healthcare greatly decreased.
1.3.3.2.2. Pro: In [South Africa](https://theconversation.com/covid-19-how-the-lockdown-has-affected-the-health-of-the-poor-in-south-africa-144374), loss of jobs and income due to the lockdown led to a reduced ability to access healthcare and a nutritious diet.
1.3.3.2.3. Pro: Between March and May 2020, India saw a [64% increase in mortality among dialysis patients](https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rjain/files/jain_dupas_noncovid_health_web.pdf) due to reduced access to healthcare amidst lockdowns.
1.3.3.3. Con: Widespread testing and quarantining of infected people can help reduce the load on workers without the need for using a curfew to isolate healthy individuals.
1.3.3.3.1. Con: Many countries are unlikely to have the [capacity and compliance](https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3553) required for testing and tracing millions of asymptomatic people.
1.3.3.4. Pro: Lockdowns can push the [waves of infection](https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/what-real-point-lockdowns) into the future, giving time for public health systems to prepare for a surge in cases.
1.3.4. Con: Neither curfews nor lockdowns reduce the long-term spread of the virus if they are not accompanied by other measures.
1.3.4.1. Pro: Lockdowns need to be coupled with improved [testing and tracing capacities](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/14/circuit-breaker-england-test-and-trace-reform-lockdown-sage) in order to effectively reduce the number of infections.
1.3.4.1.1. Pro: Without sufficient testing and tracing, a [lockdown](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-53190500) can fail to curb the rise in the number of infections.
1.3.5. Pro: Lockdowns have helped reduce the spread of infections in many countries.
1.3.5.1. Pro: Italy has contained the virus using curfews.
1.3.5.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.5.1.2.2.
1.3.5.1.2. Con: The [death toll](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/italy-bans-internal-travel-stop-virus-spread-live-updates-200322235532945.html) in Italy is rising daily, even after imposing curfews, as of March 2020.
1.3.5.1.2.1. Pro: Days after the curfew had been imposed, the death toll in Italy rose by [602](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/italy-bans-internal-travel-stop-virus-spread-live-updates-200322235532945.html) in one day.
1.3.5.1.2.1.1. Con: Like all other measures, it will take some time for the curfews to show real results.
1.3.5.1.2.1.1.1. Pro: The curfew was imposed on [20th March 2020](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/italy-army-to-patrol-streets-to-avoid-curfew-breaches/1773379). This measure needs more time to prove its effectiveness.
1.3.5.1.2.2. Con: -> See 1.3.1.3.3.1.
1.3.5.1.3. Pro: The death toll from the COVID-19 outbreak [has slowed](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/03/23/coronavirus-italy-sees-slight-slowdown-in-deaths-and-new-cases/) since curfews were instituted.
1.3.5.1.3.1. Pro: Reuters reported 6,077 total fatalities with 63,927 total confirmed cases on 22nd March 2020, an increase of 4,789 over the past day. This is the [smallest increase](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/03/23/coronavirus-italy-sees-slight-slowdown-in-deaths-and-new-cases/#58ad07b97953) for the last five days.
1.3.5.1.3.2. Con: In Italy, there has been a [decline](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/03/23/coronavirus-italy-sees-slight-slowdown-in-deaths-and-new-cases/#58ad07b97953) in tests being carried out. Therefore, it is uncertain if the spread of the virus is being slowed down.
1.3.5.2. Con: Some countries have already successfully recovered from the pandemic through lockdowns and other measures. A global curfew would unnecessarily require them to undergo a lockdown.
1.3.5.2.1. Pro: To a great extent, [China](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/19/china-becomes-first-major-economy-to-recover-from-covid-19-pandemic) has already successfully recovered from the pandemic.
1.3.5.2.2. Pro: [New Zealand](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667\(20\)30237-1/fulltext) has been able to successfully contain the spread of COVID-19.
1.3.5.2.3. Con: Even if some countries have successfully contained the spread of COVID-19, [no country is fully safe](https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/sgsm20129.doc.htm) from the virus until it is globally contained.
1.3.5.2.3.1. Pro: Countries are seeing [new outbreaks](https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3120104/chinas-new-coronavirus-outbreaks-expose-vulnerable-economic) even after having drastically reduced the transmission.
1.3.5.2.3.1.1. Pro: Australia saw a new outbreak after [17 consecutive days](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54954923) without a case.
1.3.5.2.3.1.2. Pro: New Zealand has had to institute '[snap lockdowns](https://nationalpost.com/news/world/snap-lockdown-for-new-zealands-largest-city-after-one-family-tests-positive-for-variant)' on account of a small number of new cases.
1.3.5.2.4. Pro: Australia has [successfully contained](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/australia-covid-19-pandemic-lockdown-1.5813280) the spread of COVID-19 after imposing an extremely strict lockdown.
1.3.5.3. Con: In some regions, lockdowns are not the best way to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
1.3.5.3.1. Pro: The spread of COVID-19 can be contained through better, less drastic measures.
1.3.5.3.1.1. Pro: Widespread testing is by far a more important step than global curfews, and should be the focus of governmental strategies to contain the virus.
1.3.5.3.1.1.1. Pro: Taiwan [successfully contained](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/taiwan-reins-spread-coronavirus-countries-stumble-200307034353325.html) the virus before significant damage could be caused. Much of their success is attributable to the thorough and careful testing of people \([p. 3](https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/jama/0/jvp200035supp1_prod.pdf?Expires=2147483647&Signature=bIZCLS7ZLWTJd~U~H40JgiEGdFb3ggVUJpBvJ7KdANK7HgK1zaj4uWHvqweGym1nWfO~nXt9Y5i1vX79pF7zjjqfzmJAy3udTdpVVZQe07xnQIPcBMXLwZ5XjgTO8yKFXVIpxsXhrmOu8sGSpKiEmQ86ZCKfOTar7fMAGmUCtjiYVFwf31K3REWAA-r3hZyoZpqz3QKpVgpsRpF9fV9thQCq0~yvbvRKTH4PcoB~CZgmXH7rpVb6bILXQn5zBCphf6pyLAa4zIebUEKfCdCYdSdi9LeIEUsesqsYpNWgHJcr4K1LC0hFlst0RHQz-vZ7I-OvrX~5jel6zjjtuDQzjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA)\).
1.3.5.3.1.1.1.1. Con: Taiwan has seen a [resurgence](https://fortune.com/2021/01/22/taiwan-covid-19-free-outbreak/) in COVID-19 cases as of January 2020.
1.3.5.3.1.1.2. Pro: [Aggressive testing](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/OMI.2020.0077) has helped Singapore contain the disease.
1.3.5.3.1.1.3. Pro: [Aggressive testing](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/south-korea-coronavirus) has helped South Korea contain the virus.
1.3.5.3.1.1.4. Con: A global curfew can be instituted along with widespread testing. A comprehensive strategy will maximize the chances of containing the virus.
1.3.5.3.1.2. Pro: Herd immunity will stop the virus spread without the need to introduce a curfew.
1.3.5.3.1.2.1. Pro: Virus outbreaks in the past have been combated via herd immunity.
1.3.5.3.1.2.1.1. Pro: A Brazilian [study](https://mbio.asm.org/content/8/6/e01390-17.full) found that herd immunity curtailed the spread of the Zika virus.
1.3.5.3.1.2.1.2. Con: Herd immunity will be incredibly [difficult](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/03/963373971/a-rocky-road-on-the-way-to-herd-immunity-for-covid-19) to achieve for COVID-19 specifically.
1.3.5.3.1.2.1.3. Con: The [British government](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/17/britain-uk-coronavirus-response-johnson-drops-go-it-alone/) has admitted its strategy of allowing the virus to spread and build up immunity was a failure.
1.3.5.3.1.2.2. Con: Herd immunity, on its own, is [inadequate](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/coronavirus-herd-immunity-meaning-definition-what-vaccine-immune-covid-19-a9397871.html). It provides a limited amount of protection to individuals, which is why people are still vaccinated today for diseases such as measles.
1.3.5.3.1.2.2.1. Pro: Natural immunity from COVID-19 would need to last long enough that those infected remain immune, and that a sufficient number of people contract and survive infection from COVID-19 to confer herd immunity. This is not something we can rely on.
1.3.5.3.1.2.2.1.1. Pro: Early work modelling the period of immunity conferred by COVID-19 infection results in a [range of possible scenarios](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.04.20031112v1), from a resurgence in a decade or so, to waves of annual outbreaks.
1.3.5.3.1.2.2.1.2. Pro: Even if it later proves to be the case that immunity lasts long enough for this to be an effective strategy, we'd be taking a massive gamble on that being true.
1.3.5.3.1.2.2.1.2.1. Pro: We simply don't know enough about how long immunity will last, because we have not been able to study how long it actually lasts, because it's - by definition - a new disease.
1.3.5.3.1.2.2.1.2.1.1. Pro: To know this, we'd need to study recovered patients until they lost immunity.
1.3.5.3.1.2.2.1.3. Pro: Other coronaviruses in circulation have immunity periods that last [less than a year](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-herd-immunity-uk-boris-johnson/608065/).
1.3.5.3.1.2.2.1.3.1. Con: While this is true of coronaviruses with relatively mild presentations, SARS, a more severe coronavirus, seems to leave recovered patients immune for [around 2 years](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/).
1.3.5.3.1.2.2.1.3.1.1. Con: The problem is, we don't know which of these patterns SARS-CoV-2 will follow.
1.3.5.3.1.2.3. Con: [Experts](https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-risk-of-reinfection-2020-2) have warned that people can get COVID-19 more than once. Therefore, achieving herd immunity is difficult.
1.3.5.3.1.2.4. Pro: If COVID-19 keeps spreading, eventually so many people will have been [infected](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615375/what-is-herd-immunity-and-can-it-stop-the-coronavirus/) and \(if they survive\) become immune that the outbreak will fizzle out on its own as the virus finds it harder and harder to find a susceptible host.
1.3.5.3.1.2.4.1. Con: -> See 1.1.
1.3.5.3.1.2.5. Con: Herd immunity is a morally unethical policy.
1.3.5.3.1.2.5.1. Pro: Under a policy of herd immunity, many people will become severely ill and a sudden boom in sick people needing hospital or ICU care will [overwhelm hospitals](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/coronavirus-nhs-private-hospitals-join-forces-academics-warn-over-strategy). This would cause a massive number of deaths.
1.3.5.3.1.2.5.1.1. Con: The UK government has tasked manufacturers with increasing the supply of [ventilators,](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/coronavirus-nhs-private-hospitals-join-forces-academics-warn-over-strategy) which will be needed to treat patients with the most severe symptoms of COVID-19.
1.3.5.3.1.2.5.1.2. Pro: In [40%](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/17/upshot/hospital-bed-shortages-coronavirus.html) of markets in the US, hospitals would not be able to make enough room for all the patients who became ill with COVID-19, even if they could empty their beds of other patients.
1.3.5.3.1.2.5.1.3. Pro: For a number of people, particularly those who are old and immunocompromised, contracting the disease puts them at [significant risk](http://www.indexjournal.com/news/covid-19/covid--who-s-most-at-risk/article_51ac0ab1-22f8-56c5-a743-c46d087922cd.html) of death.
1.3.5.3.1.2.5.2. Pro: Herd immunity would involve the government deliberately making people [suffer](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51214864), or even die because it is logistically inept at containing the virus.
1.3.5.3.1.2.5.2.1. Pro: COVID-19 could infect [60%](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/11/coronavirus-expert-warns-infection-could-reach-60-of-worlds-population) of the world's population if it's left unchecked.
1.3.5.3.1.2.5.3. Con: A global curfew would have devastating long-term [consequences](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/business/economy/coronavirus-us-economy-shutdown.html) which would destroy lives. It is morally legitimate for the government to try and prevent them.
1.3.5.3.1.3. Con: A global curfew can be kept in place for a shorter amount of time than other measures, as, if effective, it could see the virus wiped out entirely.
1.3.5.3.2. Pro: In countries where lockdowns had a devastating impact on lives and livelihoods, public health experts have called for [other measures to control the spread](https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3422).
1.3.5.4. Pro: [Vietnam successfully](https://ourworldindata.org/covid-exemplar-vietnam) contained the spread of COVID-19 using lockdowns.
1.3.5.5. Pro: A [study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18963-y)(We also report a decrease in self-reports of new onset smell/taste changes as early as 5 days after lockdown enforcement.) conducted in France, Italy, and the UK showed that enforcing lockdowns led to a reduction in reports of loss of smell and taste, a symptom associated with COVID-19 infections.
1.3.5.6. Pro: China has contained the virus using curfews.
1.3.5.6.1. Pro: As of the 5th of February 2020, [53 cities](http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13105716) across China had imposed restrictions on movements of the public.
1.3.5.6.2. Pro: [Wuhan](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55628488), the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak, has seen a return to relative normality after it used swift and strict lockdown measures to curtail the spread of the virus.
1.4. Con: A global curfew will have devastating socio-economic consequences.
1.4.1. Con: The global curfew will lead to improvements in our environment.
1.4.1.1. Pro: Lockdowns that have so far been instituted for COVID-19 have [significantly curbed emissions](https://theconversation.com/how-changes-brought-on-by-coronavirus-could-help-tackle-climate-change-133509).
1.4.1.1.1. Pro: China's lockdown led to a [25% reduction in energy use and emissions](https://theconversation.com/how-changes-brought-on-by-coronavirus-could-help-tackle-climate-change-133509) compared to the same two-week period the year before.
1.4.1.1.2. Pro: The pandemic has increased practices such as telecommuting, remote working, and [virtual conferences](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01521-3), which are likely to reduce transport-led emissions.
1.4.1.1.2.1. Con: Some [experts](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200218-why-working-from-home-might-be-less-sustainable) believe that working from home might be less sustainable than expected.
1.4.1.1.3. Pro: The drop in carbon emissions due to lockdowns is aiding the fight against [climate change](https://theconversation.com/how-changes-brought-on-by-coronavirus-could-help-tackle-climate-change-133509).
1.4.1.1.3.1. Con: In March 2020, the International Energy Agency has warned that the virus will [weaken global investments](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/air-pollution-falls-as-coronavirus-slows-travel-but-it-forms-a-new-threat.html) in clean energy and industry efforts to reduce emissions.
1.4.1.2. Pro: Many countries have seen a reduction in pollution.
1.4.1.2.1. Pro: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a [huge drop](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/23/coronavirus-pandemic-leading-to-huge-drop-in-air-pollution) in air pollution in March 2020.
1.4.1.2.2. Pro: Lockdowns in response to the pandemic have resulted in a significant reduction of [noise pollution](https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.abd2438).
1.4.1.2.3. Con: During lockdowns, some governments suspended laws that curbed environmental pollution.
1.4.1.2.3.1. Pro: During the pandemic, the [Indian government](https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/modi-govt-weakening-environment-laws-ministry-from-day-1-jairam-ramesh-118111900718_1.html) passed legislation that weakened environmental regulations concerning pollution.
1.4.1.2.3.2. Pro: The [Trump administration](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/27/trump-pollution-laws-epa-allows-companies-pollute-without-penalty-during-coronavirus) in the US suspended enforcement of certain environmental protection laws during the pandemic. This meant that polluters were allowed to ignore some regulations by claiming that the violations were caused by the pandemic.
1.4.1.2.3.3. Pro: In March 2020, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic recently urged the European Union to [abandon its landmark green law](https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/czech-pm-urges-eu-to-ditch-green-deal-amid-virus/) focusing on carbon neutrality as it grapples with the virus outbreak.
1.4.1.3. Con: Any environmental improvement due to curfews will be only [temporary](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/air-pollution-falls-as-coronavirus-slows-travel-but-it-forms-a-new-threat.html).
1.4.1.3.1. Pro: According to the [UN](https://library.wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=21795#.X7xWFS2ZMWo), as of November 2020, carbon dioxide levels in the air had already reached record highs.
1.4.1.3.2. Pro: Air travel is expected to [bounce back](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/21/air-pollution-falls-as-coronavirus-slows-travel-but-it-forms-a-new-threat.html) after the pandemic subsides, and the industry’s emissions are expected to triple by 2050.
1.4.2. Con: A global curfew would require people to stay at home. This has beneficial consequences.
1.4.2.1. Con: Being forced to stay at home can expose some people to the risk of domestic abuse or violence.
1.4.2.1.1. Pro: Women have reported increased cases of [domestic abuse](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-20/domestic-violence-spike-amid-coronavirus-crisis/12074726) amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.4.2.1.1.1. Pro: Domestic violence is rooted in power and control. Since the crisis, people are feeling a lack of control over their lives and an individual who cannot manage such emotions will take it out on their [spouse](https://time.com/5803887/coronavirus-domestic-violence-victims/).
1.4.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: Financial strain, job loss, food insecurity and mental health conditions could all inflame [high-stress situations](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-20/domestic-violence-spike-amid-coronavirus-crisis/12074726), leading to more and extreme instances of violence.
1.4.2.1.1.2. Pro: Women with abusive partners find it difficult to get help.
1.4.2.1.1.2.1. Pro: Abusers, who won't let partners leave the house, have used the health emergency to [control](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-20/domestic-violence-spike-amid-coronavirus-crisis/12074726) their partner's movements and daily activities.
1.4.2.1.1.2.2. Pro: The current crisis also makes it more difficult for victims to seek help. As medical facilities around the world scramble to respond to COVID-19, health systems are becoming [overloaded](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/world/europe/12italy-coronavirus-health-care.html), making it more difficult for victims to get access to medical care or therapists.
1.4.2.1.1.2.3. Pro: Many victims also feel that they can no longer seek refuge at their [parents’ homes](https://time.com/5803887/coronavirus-domestic-violence-victims/), for fear that they could expose their elderly parents to the virus.
1.4.2.1.1.2.4. Pro: The COVID-19 pandemic has made it difficult for women to access social services.
1.4.2.1.1.2.4.1. Pro: Many social services for victims of domestic violence will also suffer [budget cuts](https://time.com/5803887/coronavirus-domestic-violence-victims/) under a recession.
1.4.2.1.1.2.4.2. Pro: Women’s shelters are likely to be [overcrowded](https://www.thehotline.org/2020/03/13/staying-safe-during-covid-19/) during this time or may close their doors if the risk of infection is deemed too high.
1.4.2.1.1.2.4.3. Con: In times of crises, people are likely to carry out more philanthropic activities. Therefore, the decrease in access to social services is not likely to be huge.
1.4.2.1.1.2.4.3.1. Pro: [Facebook](https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/10/facebook-makes-it-easier-to-donate-in-times-of-crisis/) has made it easier to donate in times of crisis.
1.4.2.1.1.3. Pro: If women start losing their jobs because of the pandemic's impact on the economy, they lose their [economic independence](https://www.calhealthreport.org/2019/07/08/in-effort-to-stop-domestic-violence-advocates-teach-financial-independence/). That makes it difficult for them to leave abusive partners.
1.4.2.1.1.4. Con: There are steps women can take to prevent or cope with instances of domestic abuse against them.
1.4.2.1.1.4.1. Pro: Women, confined to their houses, can remain connected with the outside world through social media. This helps break their feelings of [isolation](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-20/domestic-violence-spike-amid-coronavirus-crisis/12074726).
1.4.2.1.1.4.2. Pro: It is also possible to continue making safety plans during periods of isolation at home such as identifying where in the house you can be that's safer if tension is rising.
1.4.2.1.1.4.3. Pro: Women can identify at what point they will need to call the police for help. They could set up a code word that they can then text to a friend to signal '[I need help](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-20/domestic-violence-spike-amid-coronavirus-crisis/12074726)'.
1.4.2.1.2. Pro: In the UK, calls to [domestic abuse](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/15/shock-new-figures-fuel-fears-of-more-lockdown-domestic-abuse-killings-in-uk) hotlines are rising throughout lockdown.
1.4.2.2. Con: The disruption of a routine can be [harmful](https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/social-distancing-mental-health) for people, particularly those who suffer from anxiety.
1.4.2.3. Pro: People have [more time to spend](https://www.unicef.org/northmacedonia/stories/things-we-learned-appreciate-more-during-covid-19-lockdown) with their families at home.
1.4.2.3.1. Pro: Without a curfew, people have to go to school and work which took up most of their time in the day. A curfew would ensure more time spent at home.
1.4.2.3.1.1. Con: People still have to work and study while at home, which would reduce the time they could spend with their family.
1.4.2.3.2. Con: Having to spend more time with family is not always a good thing.
1.4.2.3.2.1. Pro: There has been a [rise](https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/fears-coronavirus-spark-divorce-surge-21710935) in the number of divorces since isolation has been mandated.
1.4.2.3.2.2. Con: People can still create distance from their family within their home, such as by working in their rooms.
1.4.2.3.2.3. Pro: Spending more time in toxic or dysfunctional households can be bad for people's health.
1.4.2.3.3. Con: Even in a global curfew, some people will still have to work, such as healthcare workers and supermarket employees.
1.4.2.4. Pro: People can relax at home since they don't have to go to work.
1.4.2.4.1. Con: Many people cannot relax if they are out of work, due to financial anxiety.
1.4.2.4.1.1. Pro: Some people cannot relax when they are worried about their savings. A lot of people are not prepared financially for this crisis.
1.4.2.4.1.1.1. Pro: In low-income countries, many people depend on [daily wages](https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/4/3/india-covid-19-lockdown-means-no-food-or-work-for-rural-poor) as a source of livelihood. Lack of access to work for such workers entails poverty and hunger.
1.4.2.4.1.2. Con: Many countries are providing people with unemployment payments.
1.4.2.4.1.2.1. Pro: The US is aiming to provide people with checks for [$1400 dollars](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22231808/joe-biden-economic-stimulus-proposal) in early 2021.
1.4.2.4.1.2.2. Pro: Ireland's "[Pandemic Unemployment Payment](https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/covid19_pandemic_unemployment_payment.html)" has been proving people with income since the pandemic began.
1.4.2.4.1.2.3. Con: The US, which struggled to handle the [pandemic](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/coronavirus-american-failure/614191/), has only given out [two rounds of stimulus cheques](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/04/fewer-people-may-qualify-for-the-1400-dollar-stimulus-payments-heres-why.html) thus far.
1.4.2.4.1.2.4. Con: The financial spending required for stimulus will have a long-lasting negative impact on economies in many countries.
1.4.2.4.1.2.4.1. Pro: Governments have provided stimulus packages through over-spending. This has caused a [fiscal deficit](https://www.wsj.com/articles/pandemic-response-will-drive-up-global-public-debt-to-a-record-imf-says-11602676800) and the resulting debt will negatively impact economic growth and health.
1.4.2.4.1.2.4.1.1. Pro: [In June 2020](https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/14891), the Institute for Fiscal Studies in the UK showed that stimulus spending would produce a budget deficit of over 20% of GDP this year, and a debt-to-GDP ratio of nearly 120% by 2024-25.
1.4.2.4.1.2.4.1.2. Pro: [Fiscal deficits](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/021015/what-effect-fiscal-deficit-economy.asp) through overspending can harm long-term economic growth and stability.
1.4.2.4.1.2.4.1.3. Con: [Fiscal deficit](https://www.imf.org/external/np/g20/110220.htm) in most countries are expected to shrink once the pandemic recedes and economies begin to recover.
1.4.2.4.1.2.4.1.4. Pro: By October 2020, the [US budget deficit](https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/10/16/924582156/-3-1-trillion-pandemic-spending-drives-the-federal-budget-deficit-to-a-record) due to spending on pandemic-related stimulus packages reached a record of $3.1 trillion.
1.4.2.4.1.2.4.2. Con: Supporting individuals and businesses through [stimulus](https://blogs.imf.org/2020/11/02/the-crisis-is-not-over-keep-spending-wisely/) is the only to protect the economy from long-term damage to its health and resilience.
1.4.2.4.1.2.4.2.1. Pro: Without a stimulus, there would be unemployment, and bankruptcies caused by the state's response to the pandemic. This will decrease the [likelihood of economic recovery](https://blogs.imf.org/2020/11/02/the-crisis-is-not-over-keep-spending-wisely/).
1.4.2.4.2. Pro: Work can extremely [stressful](https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/work-related-stress) for people. Staying away from it gives them much needed breathing space.
1.4.2.4.3. Con: Many people find [comfort](https://www.jobteaser.com/fr/advices/195-8-things-people-who-enjoy-their-work-do-differently) in working.
1.4.3. Pro: In many countries, lockdowns have exacerbated socio-economic [inequalities](https://theconversation.com/five-ways-coronavirus-lockdowns-increase-inequality-135767). A global curfew is likely to do the same.
1.4.3.1. Pro: If a curfew is enforced by fines, this will hurt those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds more [severely](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/18/pitched-battle-lockdowns-covid-19-uk-coronavirus-crisis-inequalities).
1.4.3.1.1. Pro: [BAME people](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/26/bame-people-fined-more-than-white-population-under-coronavirus-laws) are more likely to be fined for breaking COVID-19 restrictions.
1.4.4. Pro: Lockdowns have had a disproportionately negative impact on the lives of [women](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/04/covid-19-economic-crash-india-jobless-women/) in some countries.
1.4.4.1. Pro: Women are more likely to be employed in sectors that have been shut down by curfews and lockdowns and so are more likely to be placed on [furlough](https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-economic-impact-worsens-inequalities-faced-by-women-report-12212859).
1.4.4.2. Pro: More of the [childcare burden](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/covid-19-childcare-burden-falling-on-women-says-chambers-ireland-1.4404602) falls on women during curfews and lockdowns.
1.4.4.3. Pro: COVID-19 lockdowns have changed the way women access maternity care. More of the care is taking place through phone consultations, and women's partners are not allowed to attend face-to-face meetings \([p. 3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7286236/#sec0002title)\).
1.4.4.4. Pro: Lockdowns have increased the [unequal distribution of household duties](https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/covid-19-and-lockdowns) within families.
1.4.5. Pro: Lockdowns have seen a worsening in people's mental health.
1.4.5.1. Pro: A global curfew keeps people isolated, making it difficult for them to interact with friends and family.
1.4.5.1.1. Pro: Social contact is a fundamental human need; being deprived of it is [linked](https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/social-distancing-mental-health) with mental and physical consequences.
1.4.5.1.2. Con: People are able to interact with each other through efficient technology.
1.4.5.1.2.1. Pro: The pandemic has resulted in a massive increase in the use of [digital communication](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305120948255).
1.4.5.1.2.2. Pro: [Digital technologies](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.554678/full) have played a critical role in maintaining meaningful social relationships for many people during lockdowns.
1.4.5.1.2.2.1. Pro: People can connect with others using social media.
1.4.5.1.2.2.2. Pro: People can video call one another, decreasing the absence felt by a lack of physical interaction.
1.4.5.1.3. Pro: A global curfew limits people's ability to travel back to their home countries, making it difficult for them to unite with their loved ones.
1.4.5.2. Pro: Suicides have increased during curfews and lockdowns, and a global curfew would likely have similar consequences.
1.4.5.2.1. Pro: [Japan](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/02/07/national/social-issues/suicides-rise-japan-pandemic/) saw 3.7% more suicides in 2020 compared to 2019.
1.4.5.2.2. Con: Preliminary data shows that Alberta, Canada saw a [decrease](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suicides-alberta-bc-saskatchewan-canada-2020-no-increase-1.5902908) in suicides.
1.4.5.2.3. Pro: Child suicides [have increased](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0253717620982514) during the lockdowns instituted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.4.5.3. Con: Curfews and lockdowns have seen an increase in the resources available for people to manage their mental health.
1.4.5.3.1. Pro: Curfews have seen an increase in people availing [teletherapy](https://time.com/5883704/teletherapy-coronavirus/).
1.4.5.3.1.1. Pro: Teletherapy allows for a more enduring doctor-patient relationship, as it is not subject to [geographical constraints](https://time.com/5883704/teletherapy-coronavirus/).
1.4.5.3.1.2. Con: Teletherapy lacks the same '[safe space](https://time.com/5883704/teletherapy-coronavirus/)' that in-person therapy provides and so people may not get the same benefit as they otherwise would.
1.4.5.3.2. Con: Although more resources are available, the sources of people's mental health struggles, such as isolation and economic anxiety, will still be present.
1.4.5.4. Con: Those who are introverted, or have social anxiety, may actually see an improvement in their mental health on account of a curfew.
1.4.5.4.1. Pro: Curfews, which necessitate people working from home, could benefit introverts in [work meetings](https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/introverts-relish-level-playing-field-of-working-from-home-1.4331532), as they are less likely to be spoken over by those who are more extroverted.
1.4.5.4.2. Con: A study has suggested that introverts are faring worse during the COVID-19 pandemic, and are experiencing more [loneliness](https://www.psypost.org/2020/10/introverts-faring-worse-than-extraverts-emotionally-and-psychologically-amid-the-covid-19-pandemic-58131) on account of curfews.
1.4.5.4.3. Pro: Many introverts have said that they are thriving without the [social responsibilities](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/may/02/for-introverts-lockdown-is-a-chance-to-play-to-our-strengths) of normal life.
1.4.6. Pro: The economic consequences of a global curfew will be disastrous.
1.4.6.1. Pro: People will be less likely to spend money.
1.4.6.1.1. Pro: Some people feel [guilty](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/dec/01/last-of-the-big-spenders-covid-new-frugality) about spending money during a serious pandemic, a view which would be reinforced by a curfew, as the restrictions would be a constant reminder of the seriousness of the situation.
1.4.6.1.1.1. Con: Given the uncertainties created by the pandemic, it is in the best interest of most people that they reduce spending and are more responsible with their money.
1.4.6.1.2. Con: Consumer spending has continued [online](https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/article/coronavirus-impact-online-retail/).
1.4.6.1.2.1. Con: People's online spending habits mean that [independent retailers](https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2020/11/can-indie-retailers-survive-second-lockdown-england-covid-19/) are losing out to Amazon, which could put many people out of business.
1.4.6.1.3. Con: Even if [consumer spending](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/12/14/the-decline-and-recovery-of-consumer-spending-in-the-us/) temporarily falls, it is likely to return to previous levels.
1.4.6.1.4. Pro: Many people have been left [unemployed](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/22/tunisia-unrest-government-imposes-night-curfew-unemployment-protests-attacks) due to the pandemic and will want to save as much money as possible till they find jobs again.
1.4.6.2. Pro: Any work with client contact will not be possible.
1.4.6.2.1. Con: For office-based jobs, client meetings can continue online.
1.4.6.2.2. Con: Certain organizations have [enforced strict safety regulations](https://mortongettys.com/our-new-rules-for-meeting-with-clients/) that allow them to continue in-person client meetings.
1.4.6.3. Con: Many of these impacts can be offset with intelligent government investment to prop up salaries in the short term and businesses in the long term.
1.4.6.3.1. Pro: The UK government has announced it will cover [80%](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51982005) of salary for staff who are kept on by their employers.
1.4.6.3.2. Con: These measures are likely to have crippling effects on economies.
1.4.6.3.2.1. Pro: Countries are likely to incur [more public debt](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/covid-19-has-countries-borrowing-money-just-about-as-quickly-as-they-can-print-it/).
1.4.6.4. Pro: A global curfew would lead to massive unemployment.
1.4.6.4.1. Pro: Certain population groups \(e.g. gig workers\) cannot afford to stop working.
1.4.6.4.1.1. Con: People can continue to work from home.
1.4.6.4.1.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.1.1.3.
1.4.6.4.1.1.2. Con: Some people cannot afford to buy devices to work from home.
1.4.6.4.1.1.2.1. Con: [Many workplaces](https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/working-from-home-do-staff-have-suitable-equipment/) would provide their workers with the appropriate equipment.
1.4.6.4.1.1.3. Con: Not all work can be continued from home.
1.4.6.4.1.1.3.1. Pro: Those in the restaurant industry, for example, would not be able to continue working from home.
1.4.6.4.1.2. Pro: Many people live hand to mouth and their jobs do not allow for paid sick leaves.
1.4.6.4.1.2.1. Pro: According to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, [24%](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/12/as-coronavirus-spreads-which-u-s-workers-have-paid-sick-leave-and-which-dont/) of U.S civilian workers, or roughly 33.6 million people, do not have access to sick leave.
1.4.6.4.1.2.2. Con: Many countries [have provided](https://www.investopedia.com/government-stimulus-efforts-to-fight-the-covid-19-crisis-4799723) stimulus packages and financial relief to help those who have been left unemployed due to the pandemic.
1.4.6.4.1.2.2.1. Pro: In December 2020, the US Congress [approved](https://www.ft.com/content/c5199922-29ec-403e-955b-b898e265a506) a $900 bn stimulus package.
1.4.6.4.1.2.2.2. Pro: The UK committed [£30 billion](https://www.france24.com/en/20200708-uk-announces-£30bn-covid-19-stimulus-package-aimed-at-young-people) for a stimulus package to help those who have been economically harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.4.6.4.1.2.2.3. Con: While it may be possible for more developed countries to provide relief to their citizens, less-developed countries [are unable to](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/coronavirus-developing-countries-inequality-debt-oxfam/) do so.
1.4.6.4.1.2.2.3.1. Pro: India [cannot afford](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/view-the-costs-of-indias-covid-crisis-are-too-high-and-it-cant-afford-to-lose-money-right-now/articleshow/77960210.cms?from=mdr) to provide any more relief to citizens that have been left jobless due to the pandemic.
1.4.6.4.1.2.2.3.2. Pro: The [extended nature](https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-covid-19-pandemic-dragging-on-some-countries-say-they-cant-afford-to-fight-11605868203) of the pandemic has made it that many countries that were initially able to provide some degree of relief are unable to do so now.
1.4.6.4.2. Con: -> See 1.4.2.4.1.2.
1.4.6.4.3. Con: Many industries are profiting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, there would be more employment in those industries.
1.4.6.4.3.1. Pro: [Courier and logistics services](https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-insider/coronavirus-insights/industries-that-have-performed-well-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/) have had an increase in activity, as people move more towards online shopping.
1.4.6.4.3.2. Con: Not all industries that have seen a boom are likely to see more employment.
1.4.6.4.3.2.1. Pro: While [streaming and video services](https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-insider/coronavirus-insights/industries-that-have-performed-well-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/) have seen an uptick in use, given this is not an in-person service, it is unclear whether there will be more employment as a result.
1.4.6.4.3.3. Pro: [Big Pharma](https://theintercept.com/2020/03/13/big-pharma-drug-pricing-coronavirus-profits/) is profiting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.4.6.4.3.3.1. Pro: [Pfizer](https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/companies/arid-40079528.html) is employing more people in Ireland in relation to its vaccine production.
1.4.6.4.3.4. Con: The number of industries profiting from the virus are an extreme [minority](https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/3/9/21168297/brands-coronavirus-benefiting-clorox-netflix) compared to the industries suffering.
1.4.6.4.4. Pro: Intermittent lockdowns across the world saw an estimated 114 million people become unemployed in 2020 \([p. 2](https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/\@dgreports/\@dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_767028.pdf)\). A global curfew would likely have even more significant job losses.
1.4.6.4.5. Pro: The [closure of cultural institutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_on_the_arts_and_cultural_heritage) means cultural workers like actors or musicians are out of work.
1.4.6.4.5.1. Pro: Most of these groups are [already working quite precariously](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46356689) and often without a financial safety net.
1.4.6.4.5.1.1. Pro: Due to this immediate loss in jobs, many workers are seeking employment [in other sectors](https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/freelancers/freelancer-exodus-on-horizon/5149080.article) that they deem more secure, which will result in a shortfall of workers in cultural institutions.
1.4.6.4.5.2. Con: Cultural workers will not be out of work long because those who organise cultural events are likely to restart events as soon as possible so that those working in events are employed and have a source of income from employment.
1.4.6.4.5.2.1. Con: If the widely promoted policy of '[social distancing](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/16/social-distancing-coronavirus/)' lasts for a significant period, those who typically work in events will be out of work for a long period.
1.4.6.4.5.2.2. Con: It is projected that even when events resume, the demand for cultural labour [will be lower](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09548963.2020.1802202?scroll=top&needAccess=true) than its original levels.
1.4.6.4.5.3. Con: The government [is subsidising](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/03/coronavirus-governments-support-workers-sick-pay-loans) the wages of workers in the events industry.
1.4.6.4.5.3.1. Pro: At a meeting in April 2020, the ministers of Culture and Media in Europe [reiterated their commitment](https://eu2020.hr/Home/OneNews?id=240) to providing support and funding for creating programs through the SURE model.
1.4.6.4.5.3.2. Pro: In March 2020, [€500 Million](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/berlin-senate-bailout-process-1820982) were distributed to artists as part of the grant program in Germany.
1.4.6.4.5.4. Pro: As reluctance to gather becomes a social norm, cultural events will become difficult to organize and fill; many will be reluctant to be in a crowd.
1.4.6.5. Con: The global economy is bouncing back after lockdowns [quicker](https://hbr.org/2020/11/why-the-global-economy-is-recovering-faster-than-expected) than expected.
1.4.6.5.1. Con: A global curfew would simultaneously shut down all economic activity in a way that individualized country lockdowns cannot.
1.5. Con: There are practical barriers to effectively implementing and enforcing a global curfew.
1.5.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.1.3.
1.5.2. Con: Many of these practical barriers can be overcome with the appropriate allocation of resources.
1.5.2.1. Pro: COVID-19 has shown that there is a [political will](https://theconversation.com/covid-19-shows-that-where-there-is-political-will-there-is-a-way-to-work-across-sectors-134999) to work across sectors to solve problems in a way that has not been seen before.
1.5.2.2. Con: As shown by the [hoarding](https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/150995) of vaccines by richer nations, it is difficult to compel and convince countries to appropriately allocate resources.
1.5.3. Pro: There is a lack of international coordination on the level needed for a global curfew.
1.5.3.1. Pro: There is no global political institution that has the power to mandate and coordinate a worldwide curfew.
1.5.3.1.1. Con: The [World Health Organization \(WHO\)](https://www.vox.com/2020/4/19/21224305/world-health-organization-trump-reform-q-a) could technically be given the institutional power to carry out such a global curfew.
1.5.3.1.1.1. Pro: Most people in most countries view the WHO [favorably](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/21/united-nations-and-world-health-organization-receive-positive-ratings-across-most-countries/\]) and so there may not be much pushback to such a measure.
1.5.3.1.1.2. Con: The WHO is [subject to the whims](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/why-world-health-organization-failed/610063/) of whatever nation is funding it, and will not be able to implement a global curfew in a neutral manner.
1.5.3.1.2. Pro: Existing [multi-national institutions](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2020-06-09/when-system-fails) failed to effectively respond to the pandemic.
1.5.3.1.2.1. Con: Existing [multi-national institutions](https://news.usni.org/2020/06/09/covid-19-pandemic-changing-how-nato-thinks-of-global-security) can be strengthened to successfully respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.5.3.2. Pro: A globally coordinated response to the pandemic requires the sharing of relevant data at a level that is currently not possible \([p. 17](https://institute.global/sites/default/files/inline-files/Tony%20Blair%20Institute%2C%20Global%20Coordination%20Requirements%20for%20Covid-19%20and%20Future%20Pandemics%2C%20May%202020.pdf)\).
1.5.3.2.1. Con: The EU has backed the [sharing](https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-backs-eu-wide-coronavirus-testing-strategy-passenger-locator-forms/) of testing data and passenger locator forms among EU countries.
1.5.3.3. Pro: On 25th June 2020, the [United Nations Chief](https://apnews.com/article/bc9d471559666deeb39004d539d0289c) criticized the lack of international coordination in tackling the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.5.3.4. Con: [Lessons](https://www.brookings.edu/research/preparing-for-the-next-pandemic-early-lessons-from-covid-19/) from a lack of global coordination in response to the current pandemic can help us prepare for a global curfew.
1.5.3.4.1. Con: It will take many [years](https://www.newstalk.com/news/planning-for-the-next-pandemic-how-we-can-learn-lessons-from-covid-19-1146474) for lessons to be learnt, and so they are unlikely to be useful for implementing a global curfew for this pandemic, but rather for the [next](https://www.brookings.edu/research/preparing-for-the-next-pandemic-early-lessons-from-covid-19/).
1.5.3.5. Con: Existing [conflicts](https://www.dw.com/en/conflicts-slow-world-pandemic-response/av-55108149) among countries would prevent a globally coordinated response to the pandemic.
1.5.3.5.1. Con: The UN Security Council has repeatedly and emphatically called for a [global ceasefire](https://www.un.org/en/globalceasefire) on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.5.3.5.1.1. Con: Between March and September 2020, when the ceasefire was meant to be in place, [over 21,000 people](https://reliefweb.int/report/world/over-21000-people-killed-un-global-ceasefire-resolution) were killed in conflict across the world.
1.5.3.5.2. Pro: COVID-19 has led to an [escalation](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201217112951.htm) in some conflicts, which can further hamper cooperation.
1.5.4. Pro: Existing inequities between countries make it difficult for a global curfew to be carried out.
1.5.4.1. Pro: Many governments do not have the capacity to meaningfully implement curfews.
1.5.4.1.1. Pro: In some countries, the police do not have the [capacity](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-rule-six-lockdown-restrictions-police-b423207.html) to introduce a nationwide lockdown effectively.
1.5.4.1.2. Con: In Brazil's favelas, where state capacity is weak, [gangs](http://oxfordpoliticalreview.com/2020/07/19/the-bizarre-role-of-gangs-during-the-coronavirus-outbreak/) have stepped in and introduced curfews.
1.5.4.1.2.1. Con: Gangs lack the accountability that states have, and may institute disproportionately harsh [punishments](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/brazil-rio-gangs-coronavirus) for breaking curfews.
1.5.4.1.3. Pro: Low-income countries have a relatively limited ability to enforce a [lockdown](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-02/poorer-countries-are-least-prepared-for-pandemic-lockdowns).
1.5.4.2. Pro: [Testing capacity](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7318938/) in different countries is not uniform. This makes it difficult to achieve the global coordination needed to effectively carry out lockdowns.
1.5.4.3. Pro: Some countries are unable to carry out lockdowns in a manner that is prescribed by global organizations such as WHO \([p. 14](https://institute.global/sites/default/files/inline-files/Tony%20Blair%20Institute%2C%20Global%20Coordination%20Requirements%20for%20Covid-19%20and%20Future%20Pandemics%2C%20May%202020.pdf)\).
1.6. Pro: Most infections are contracted in public spaces. By limiting the number and the time spent by people in such spaces through a global curfew, infections can be reduced.
1.6.1. Pro: It is difficult to determine who is and who is not a carrier, making it more important to prevent people from entering public spaces.
1.6.1.1. Pro: Many carriers are [asymptomatic](https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/covid-19/asymptomatic-carriers-covid-19-make-it-tough-target).
1.6.1.1.1. Pro: [More than 50%](https://www.mcknights.com/news/cdc-study-confirms-coronavirus-most-often-spread-by-asymptomatic-carriers/) of cases of COVID-19 are spread by asymptomatic carriers.
1.6.1.1.2. Con: It is unclear whether the extent of [asymptomatic spread](https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4436/rr-10) is enough to justify a large-scale lockdown.
1.6.1.1.2.1. Pro: The risk of an asymptomatic person spreading the virus to others within the same household is about [one-quarter](https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.04.20225573) of the risk of spread from a symptomatic person.
1.6.1.1.3. Pro: It is estimated that 1 in 6 infections are due to [asymptomatic](https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/jammi-2020-0030) spread.
1.6.1.2. Pro: It can take [14 days](https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-incubation-period) for symptoms to show.
1.6.1.2.1. Pro: People tend to be able to transmit the virus [two days](https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted) before symptoms of COVID-19 appear.
1.6.1.3. Pro: In the early stages, the symptoms [closely resemble](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/11/health/coronavirus-cold-allergies-flu-difference-symptoms-wellness-trnd/index.html) that of allergies or the flu.
1.6.1.4. Pro: COVID-19 may linger in the body for [two weeks](https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-spread-after-recovery.html) after people recover and can be passed on.
1.6.2. Pro: In public spaces, people can easily come into [contact](https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/coronavirus-resource-center) with another. That is likely to spread the virus.
1.6.2.1. Pro: Public spaces such as parks, restaurants, and theatres [all pose hazards](https://graphics.reuters.com/HEALTH-CORONAVIRUS/SOCIALDISTANCING/qzjvqenmyvx/) for virus transmission.
1.6.2.2. Pro: The virus spreads through [aerosolized droplets](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/public-places-and-the-coronavirus-what-to-know), which can infect anyone in close proximity to an infected person.
1.6.2.2.1. Con: [Mask wearing](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8) can help to stop the spread of aerosolized droplets, and the spread of infection with them, and so can be used in public spaces to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, short of a global curfew.
1.6.2.3. Pro: The virus [persists](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-study-idUSKBN2143QP) in the air and on surfaces for hours and days respectively.
1.6.2.3.1. Con: Experts have said that the risk of catching COVID-19 from surfaces is [overblown](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/28/clean-break-the-risk-of-catching-covid-from-surfaces-overblown-experts-say).
1.6.2.4. Con: Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection can effectively [reduce the spread](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(20\)31142-9/fulltext) of the virus.
1.6.3. Con: People could be infected in their homes if their family members are carriers.
1.6.3.1. Pro: People are more likely to get infected in their houses since they come into [closer proximity](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213573/coronavirus-more-likely-spread-inside-through/) with their family members than to strangers in public places.
1.6.3.1.1. Con: People can be relatively sure that their family members are taking necessary precautions to protect themselves from the virus. The same cannot be said about strangers.
1.6.3.1.2. Pro: People are likely to be physically affectionate to their family members. Therefore, since the chances of contact are higher, they are more likely to get infected in their homes.
1.6.3.1.3. Pro: There is also more sustained contact between people in their homes, when compared with people who one interacts with in public.
1.6.3.2. Con: Since there are more people in public places than in homes, it is more likely people will be infected in public places.
1.6.3.2.1. Pro: The number of people who can be infected by one person is greater when they frequent public spaces.
1.6.3.3. Con: Homes have a limited and finite number of people in them - if someone you live with is a carrier and gives it to the rest of your household, there are no further people to spread it to.
1.6.3.4. Pro: A lot of the spread of COVID-19 has been seen in [private homes](https://abc7news.com/coronavirus-covid-19-risk-bay-area-stay-at-home-order-tsa-travel-numbers/9153331/), something which is difficult to police.
1.6.3.4.1. Con: Global curfews would not allow people outside, and so it would reduce the number of people going to one another's homes.
1.6.4. Con: A significant proportion of COVID-19 infections take place in [indoor spaces with poor ventilation](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213573/coronavirus-more-likely-spread-inside-through/). Most social distancing and lockdown measures do not effectively address such transmission.
1.6.4.1. Pro: The COVID-19 virus is more likely to spread in [indoor spaces](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213573/coronavirus-more-likely-spread-inside-through/) than outdoor public spaces.